X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com
Return-Path: <thomasmann51@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-iy0-f180.google.com ([209.85.210.180] verified)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.3)
  with ESMTPS id 5336240 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 03 Jan 2012 22:28:06 -0500
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.210.180; envelope-from=thomasmann51@gmail.com
Received: by iazz13 with SMTP id z13so29928176iaz.25
        for <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>; Tue, 03 Jan 2012 19:27:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        bh=alePHjOwSvMO0zo0Pt11vWUe7hsAOL4UfDYa5Tl9sdc=;
        b=WWq4rLhXoyVRxNTx3js5DE1YT7Jh2pOXsC4JejG9PG5A2HPCZTtSXT9jDoVgOfZ1F7
         S5X0ytiBZDifZjr2Opj99BO+pLW67irEv7AcwrMwsBrKiNJ0tiZrR58gkiTHQVoF58El
         j37EQNQkYbIY+fJ+yRflgFdruT5HVxoIb7FpM=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.42.174.198 with SMTP id w6mr28820086icz.37.1325647648499; Tue,
 03 Jan 2012 19:27:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.42.229.9 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Jan 2012 19:27:28 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <list-5336245@logan.com>
References: <list-5336245@logan.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 21:27:28 -0600
Message-ID: <CAH_WSmr6VnGU=7wV4sFvyVHTTUxaVcUvHAVcMn+=rs+Q1hHdCA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Renesis intake port layout needed
From: Thomas Mann <thomasmann51@gmail.com>
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=90e6ba6e8efa2fa87304b5ab6599

--90e6ba6e8efa2fa87304b5ab6599
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Yes, the intake is obviously a bigger deal than the exhaust.

From my perspective I would hold out for the CG Parts intake. It's the best
approach I have seen to date.
The flange is such a small part of the intake. I'm not going to even
consider fabricating the intake.



On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 9:11 PM, Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net>wrote:

>  On 01/03/2012 07:15 PM, Thomas Mann wrote:
>
> Flanges for the rotary are too cheap to justify doing them yourself.
> I mean really? How much will you save trying to fabricate a $30 flange?
>
>  http://www.mazdatrix.com/E3.HTM
>
> I'd agree, if there was an intake flange anywhere on that exhaust flange
> page. :-)
>

--90e6ba6e8efa2fa87304b5ab6599
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Yes, the intake is obviously a bigger deal than the exhaust.<div><br></div>=
<div>From my perspective I would hold out for the CG Parts intake. It&#39;s=
 the best approach I have seen to date.</div><div>The flange is such a smal=
l part of the intake. I&#39;m not going to even consider fabricating the in=
take.</div>
<div><br></div><div><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 =
at 9:11 PM, Charlie England <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:ceengla=
nd@bellsouth.net" target=3D"_blank">ceengland@bellsouth.net</a>&gt;</span> =
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">

 =20
   =20
 =20
  <div bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF" text=3D"#000000"><div><div></div><div>
    On 01/03/2012 07:15 PM, Thomas Mann wrote:
    <blockquote type=3D"cite">Flanges
      for the rotary are too cheap to justify doing them yourself.
      <div>I mean really? How much will you save trying to fabricate a
        $30 flange?</div>
      <div><br>
      </div>
      <div><a href=3D"http://www.mazdatrix.com/E3.HTM" target=3D"_blank">ht=
tp://www.mazdatrix.com/E3.HTM</a></div>
    </blockquote>
    </div></div><font size=3D"+1"><font face=3D"Arial">I&#39;d agree, if th=
ere was an intake
        flange anywhere on that exhaust flange page. :-)</font></font><br>
  </div>

</blockquote></div><br>
</div>

--90e6ba6e8efa2fa87304b5ab6599--